The United States military has launched yet another deadly strike in the Caribbean, targeting what it claims was a drug-smuggling vessel, and reigniting fierce debate in Washington and abroad over the legality, ethics, and potential consequences of this campaign. The latest incident, which occurred on November 1, 2025, resulted in the deaths of three people and marks at least the 15th such strike by the U.S. in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific since early September, according to multiple sources including Sky News, Associated Press, and the Pentagon.
Announcing the operation on Saturday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared, “This vessel—like EVERY OTHER—was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.” Hegseth, in a statement shared widely on social media, did not specify which group was targeted but insisted the vessel was operated by a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. He added, “These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home—and they will not succeed.”
This hardline rhetoric has become a hallmark of the Trump administration’s approach to drug trafficking in the region. Hegseth went a step further, drawing a direct comparison between the alleged smugglers and notorious terrorist groups. “The Department will treat them EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda. We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them, and kill them,” he said, echoing the language and tactics of the post-9/11 war on terror. Video footage of the strike was released by the Pentagon, though, as in previous cases, parts of the boat were obscured, making it impossible for outside observers to verify exactly how many people were on board or the precise circumstances of the deaths.
Since this campaign began in earnest in early September 2025, at least 64 people have been killed in U.S. strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, according to figures compiled by AP and the United Nations. The pace and scale of these attacks have drawn mounting criticism from human rights organizations and international bodies. On Friday, the United Nations urged Washington to halt the strikes, with UN rights chief Volker Türk stating that the people killed had died “in circumstances that find no justification in international law.” Türk called the attacks and their “mounting human cost” unacceptable and demanded that the U.S. “take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”
President Donald Trump has repeatedly justified the campaign as a necessary escalation in the fight to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. He has asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, relying on the same legal authority invoked by the Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks to wage war on terrorism. “These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home—and they will not succeed,” Hegseth reiterated on Saturday, reinforcing the administration’s framing of the strikes as part of a broader war effort.
Yet, the legal and moral basis for these operations remains hotly contested. Many American lawmakers, from both parties, have demanded more information from the White House about the justification for the strikes and greater transparency regarding which cartels have been targeted and who has been killed. Senate Democrats renewed their request for such details in a letter sent Friday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary Hegseth. “We also request that you provide all legal opinions related to these strikes and a list of the groups or other entities the President has deemed targetable,” wrote the senators, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Warner, Chris Coons, Patty Murray, and Brian Schatz.
The letter went on to criticize the administration for sharing “what has at times been contradictory information” with some lawmakers while excluding others, fueling suspicions that the legal rationale for the strikes may be less robust than officials have claimed. Earlier in the fall, both the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee had sent their own letters requesting the department’s legal rationale for the strikes and a list of drug cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations. So far, these requests have been mostly rebuffed, with the White House declining to provide comprehensive answers.
The controversy has not been confined to Washington. The strikes have further strained already tense relations with Venezuela. President Trump has accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading an organized crime gang, though he has provided no evidence for this claim. When pressed by reporters, Trump has declined to clarify whether the CIA has been authorized to assassinate Maduro. In response, Maduro has accused Trump of seeking regime change and “fabricating a new eternal war” against Venezuela, appealing directly to the American public for peace.
The military buildup in the region has only added to the sense of impending crisis. Several U.S. Navy vessels, including the USS Gerald R. Ford—the world’s largest aircraft carrier—have moved closer to Venezuela, fueling speculation about possible further military action. Satellite images published by Sky News show the U.S. military edging ever closer to Venezuelan waters, and the presence of American warships has become a flashpoint for both domestic and international critics of the Trump administration’s strategy.
Meanwhile, the debate over the strikes’ effectiveness and legitimacy rages on. Supporters argue that decisive action is needed to disrupt the flow of narcotics and dismantle powerful criminal organizations that threaten U.S. security. “These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home—and they will not succeed,” Hegseth has insisted, framing the campaign as a matter of national defense. Critics, however, warn that the strikes risk setting a dangerous precedent for extrajudicial killings and could further destabilize the region, all while lacking clear legal backing or congressional oversight.
As the death toll rises and calls for transparency grow louder, the Trump administration faces mounting pressure to clarify its objectives and legal justifications. For now, the strikes continue, the rhetoric remains fierce, and the world watches closely to see whether the U.S. will escalate its campaign—or heed the warnings of its critics and allies alike.